Proposals
received by the NSF Proposal Processing Unit are assigned to the appropriate
NSF program for acknowledgment and, if they meet NSF requirements,
for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer,
or educator serving as a NSF Program Officer, and usually by three
to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular
fields represented by the proposal. Proposers are invited to suggest
names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review
the proposal or persons they would prefer not review the proposal.
These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection
process at the Program Officer’s discretion. Program Officers may
obtain comments from assembled review panels or from site visits before
recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review
recommendations for awards.

A.
Review Criteria

The National
Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating proposals
at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). The criteria are
designed to be useful and relevant across NSF's many different
programs, however, NSF will employ special criteria as required
to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The merit review
criteria are listed below. Following each criterion are potential
considerations that the reviewer may employ in the evaluation.
These are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal.
Each reviewer will be asked to address only those that are relevant
to the proposal and for which he/she is qualified to make judgments.

Criterion
1: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

How important
is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding
within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified
is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If
appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior
work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore
creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized
is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

Criterion
2: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

How well does
the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting
teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity
broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender,
ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will
it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such
as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will
the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and
technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed
activity to society?

PIs should address
the following elements in their proposal to provide reviewers
with the information necessary to respond fully to the above-described
NSF merit review criteria. NSF staff will give these elements
careful consideration in making funding decisions.

Integration
of Research and Education

One of the principal
strategies in support of NSF’s goals is to foster integration
of research and education through the programs, projects and activities
it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions
provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently
assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students,
and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education
with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the
diversity of learning perspectives.

Integrating
Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities

Broadening opportunities
and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men,
underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities --
are essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering.
NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central
to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

B.
Administrative Corrections to FastLane Proposals

NSF recognizes
that minor, non-content-related errors might occur in proposal
development and that these errors may not be discovered until
after the proposal submission to NSF. To enable organizations
to correct such errors, FastLane provides a 60-minute "grace period,"
that begins immediately following proposal submission. This grace
period does not extend the proposal deadline (e.g., if a proposal
deadline is 5:00 p.m. proposer’s local time, the proposal must
be submitted by 5:00 p.m., and administrative corrections are
allowed until 6:00 p.m., proposer local time). During this grace
period, authorized sponsored project office personnel are allowed
to make administrative corrections to Cover Sheet (NSF Form 1207)
and Budget (NSF Form 1030) data. These corrections do not include
changes to identified PIs, co-PIs, or other senior project personnel.
Access to the Administrative Corrections utility is through the
"Submit Proposals to NSF" function on the FastLane Web
site at: <http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/>.

C.
Revisions to Proposals Made During the Review Process

In the event
of a significant development (e.g., research findings, changed
circumstances, unavailability of PI or other key personnel, etc.)
that might materially affect the outcome of the review of a pending
proposal, the proposer should contact the Program Officer to whom
the proposal is assigned to discuss the issue. Submitting additional
information must not be used as a means of circumventing page
limitations or stated deadlines.

Before recommending
whether or not NSF should support a particular project, the NSF
Program Officer may, subject to certain constraints outlined below,
engage in discussions with the proposing PIs.

Negotiating
budgets generally involves discussing a lower or higher amount
of total support for the proposed project. The NSF Program Officer
may suggest reducing or eliminating costs for specific budget
items that are clearly unnecessary or unreasonable for the activities
to be undertaken, especially when the review process supports
such changes; however, this would generally not include faculty
salaries, salary rates, fringe benefits, or tuition. Note: indirect
cost rates are not subject to negotiation. The NSF Program Officers
may discuss with PIs the "bottom line" award amount,
i.e., the total NSF funding that will be recommended for a project.
NSF Program Officers may not renegotiate cost sharing or other
institutional commitments.

When such discussions
result in a budget reduction of 10% or more from the amount originally
proposed, a corresponding reduction should be made in the scope
of the project, unless the NSF Program Officer, PI and organization
clearly agree that the project as proposed can be carried out
at a lesser level of support from NSF with no expectation of any
uncompensated organizational contribution beyond that formally
reflected as cost sharing. It is anticipated that FastLane capability
for submission of this information will be available later this
fiscal year.

Such reductions
in scope or agreement to carry out the project as originally proposed
must be signed by the PI and the Authorized Organizational Representative
(AOR) and be submitted to the NSF Program Officer. By signing
and submitting this modification to the proposal, the PI and AOR
are certifying the accuracy and completeness of the information
provided.

D.
Award Recommendation

After scientific,
technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate
factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division
Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended
for award. Normally, final programmatic approval is at the division
level. Because of the large volume of proposals, this review and
consideration process may take up to six months. Large or particularly
complex proposals may require additional review and processing
time. If the program recommendation is for an award and final
division or other programmatic approval is obtained, then the
recommendation goes to the Division of Grants and Agreements for
review of business, financial and policy implications and the
processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. The Division
of Grants and Agreements generally makes awards to academic institutions
within 30 days after the program division makes its recommendation.
Grants being made to organizations that have not received a NSF
award within the preceding two years, or involving special situations
(such as coordination with another Federal agency or a private
funding source), cooperative agreements, and other unusual arrangements
may require additional review and processing time.

Proposers are
cautioned that only an appointed Grants Officer in the Division
of Grants and Agreements may make commitments, obligations or
awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds.
No commitment on the part of NSF or the Government should be inferred
from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSFProgram Officer.
A PI or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments
in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the
NSF Grants Officer does so at its own risk.

E.
Copies of Reviews

When a decision
has been made (whether an award or a declination), verbatim copies
of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and summaries
of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the PI.
Proposers may also request and obtain any other releasable material
in NSF’s file on their proposal. Everything in the file except
information that directly identifies either reviewers or other
pending or declined proposals is usually releasable to the proposer.